[saghm]

> The onus should not be on the communicator to qualify every statement of opinion. This is tedious and unreasonable.

I fundamentally disagree with this. In my experience, it's in pretty much in possible for people to perfectly understand intent without a certain amount of effort from both the communicator to express it clearly and the listener to understand it. In practice, I don't think there's a good chance of successful communication for any nuanced topic without good-faith effort from both sides, and I can't differentiate between the language the author used and what I'd expect to hear from someone who reflexively dismisses any disagreement as in bad faith.

[ryanackley]

This argument over the semantics of how to express an opinion feels like a proxy for people who strongly disagree with him on remote work seeking an outlet.

I say that because you (and everyone else who seems upset) clearly understand it's just his opinion. Therefore, why are you offended by his intent? Whatever his intent might be, I think it's irrelevant. It's simply a strongly held opinion.

[saghm]

> I say that because you (and everyone else who seems upset) clearly understand it's just his opinion.

I genuinely don't understand whether it's the case or not, and I've tried to be clear about that. I am not able to tell whether it's their opinion or if they actually feel like they're objective facts; both are plausible to me, and I'm arguing that if they want people to understand which they mean, they need to be more specific. Otherwise, people will draw conclusions that may not align with their intent, and that's something they could avoid if they put more care into how they expressed it.